Moonlight Graham Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) Olberman hits the nail on the head during his May 14th MSNBC Special Comment. Edited May 16, 2008 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Off the top of my head i think he, & to a lesser extent Chris Matthews, are the only people on American network news who have consistently criticized the Bush administration. I always enjoy his comments. Kudos to him, and to MSNBC for letting this stuff on-air (...after they sacked Phil Donahue). Where are the others??? Why must we rely on Comedy Central, PBS, and HBO to find some criticisms of this gov't on television? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Where are the others??? Why must we rely on Comedy Central, PBS, and HBO to find some criticisms of this gov't on television? Because you live in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 (edited) bump Edited May 16, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 17, 2008 Report Share Posted May 17, 2008 Off the top of my head i think he, & to a lesser extent Chris Matthews, are the only people on American network news who have consistently criticized the Bush administration.To suggest that MSNBC is the only news network to criticize the Bush Administration just isn't true. All of the networks have criticized them. And the primary job of network news isn't to criticize the Bush Administration, it's to report the news. I know, I know, crazy concept. Keith Olbermann's "special comments" always make me laugh. His unique style of melodrama and self-importance make for outstanding entertainment. I know I enjoy it, and I'm sure Keith's 10 other viewers do as well. I also enjoy the same 5 guests he has attend on a regular basis, who all agree with his views and politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 17, 2008 Report Share Posted May 17, 2008 ....Keith Olbermann's "special comments" always make me laugh. His unique style of melodrama and self-importance make for outstanding entertainment. I know I enjoy it, and I'm sure Keith's 10 other viewers do as well. I also enjoy the same 5 guests he has attend on a regular basis, who all agree with his views and politics. Olbermann goes way back with such sanctimony to his days at ESPN, where he burned many bridges on the way out of sportscasting. He is obsessed with George Bush, totally consumed. He is not a "news network". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 To suggest that MSNBC is the only news network to criticize the Bush Administration just isn't true. All of the networks have criticized them. And the primary job of network news isn't to criticize the Bush Administration, it's to report the news. I know, I know, crazy concept. But they don't report the news. Have many times has the name "curveball" appeared on CNN in the last 7 years? The primary job of network news it's to report the news, its to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 Whether or not you appreciate Keith Olberman's 'Edward R. Murrow' imitation, you can't get around the fact that he was one of the few media pundits to go out on a limb - forcefully opposing the Bush Administration and the Iraq War back when both were popular, and he was continually under threat of going out the same way as Phil Donahue, for his troubles! Now we are beginning to discover the full extent that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon manipulated the media by sending in scripted military analysts: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/ Add that with the network scramble to have embedded reporters to serve as on site propagandists in the war zones, and it shows most of the media pundits and networks were more concerned about appearing unpatriotic in front of a public that was supporting the war, than they were about playing the role that journalists claim to perform - getting at the truth, and informing the public! Most of the reporters had access to sources in the CIA, Pentagon, State Dept. etc. and knew that the road to Baghdad was paved with lies; why didn't they open their mouths until the public started getting disenchanted when the "liberation" turned into a quagmire! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 .... Most of the reporters had access to sources in the CIA, Pentagon, State Dept. etc. and knew that the road to Baghdad was paved with lies; why didn't they open their mouths until the public started getting disenchanted when the "liberation" turned into a quagmire! Because it would be bad for ratings. Look what happened to Dan Rather and his "truth"....it's way overrated anyway. The US Congress had access to the same (and better) sources, but still chose to support the invasion of Iraq. Seek true love elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 19, 2008 Report Share Posted May 19, 2008 (edited) But they don't report the news. Have many times has the name "curveball" appeared on CNN in the last 7 years?Well, let's take a look, shall we?Pentagon's prewar intelligence role questioned Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," the committee's chairman and vice chairman, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas and Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, respectively, expressed concern over actions by the Defense Intelligence Agency and Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy. Roberts cited false information on Iraq that the Bush administration had taken from a source code-named Curveball. CNN Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life' "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball." CNN White House defends Bush's post-invasion WMD claims McClellan said the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world." Intelligence about the mobile biological weapons labs came mainly from a source whose code name was "Curveball." CNN CNN exclusive interview with John McLaughlin BLITZER: And on this point, let me read again from the Senate Intelligence Committee report. "The intelligence community"-- that would be you -- "relies too heavily on foreign government sources and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of U.S. policy by foreign interests." That would seem to be a suggestion that people, Iraqis like Ahmed Chalabi, for example, who had a political interest were feeding false information. That's the accusation. There's this other source called Curveball, which the Senate Intelligence Committee report talks about extensively. And apparently was feeding all sorts of information that was bogus. What do you do about that? And is it true? CNN Alright. I'm tired of posting these examples. However, I'm more tired of people's self-constructed fallacies, particularly from those of you on the left, in an effort to strengthen an otherwise very weak argument. As you can see, you're wrong. As wrong as one can be. So please, stop spreading at best, ignorant opinions, or at worst deceitful lies. As the saying goes, facts can be stubborn things. Edited May 19, 2008 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 BUMP! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Because it would be bad for ratings. Look what happened to Dan Rather and his "truth"....it's way overrated anyway. The US Congress had access to the same (and better) sources, but still chose to support the invasion of Iraq. Seek true love elsewhere. So what you are saying is that you do not care for truth? By your posts, one can surmise that you do not care, nor respect the truth. Tis all about the ratings and making a profit and one always makes a profit at someone elses expense. Congress went along with it (by your definition) because there was a plan in place long before the decision to go to war was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 So what you are saying is that you do not care for truth? By your posts, one can surmise that you do not care, nor respect the truth. Tis all about the ratings and making a profit and one always makes a profit at someone elses expense. There is no such thing as the "truth"....just your perceptions feeding a belief system. Did Dan Rather present the "truth"?....he thinks so. However, there are facts, opinions, evidence, lies, disinformation, etc., from which we can derive a very subjective "truth". Profit is good, much better than no profit. I never got a job from a poor man. Congress went along with it (by your definition) because there was a plan in place long before the decision to go to war was made. No, Congress "went along" because of the post 9/11 political environment coupled with longstanding Public Law for Iraq. Many members of Congress voted "No" to the October 2002 resolution. Did they have better WMD intel than all the rest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 There is no such thing as the "truth".... Tell that to a judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Tell that to a judge. How ironic..."judges" exist in part because truth doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 BC There is no such thing as the "truth"....just your perceptions feeding a belief system. Did Dan Rather present the "truth"?....he thinks so. However, there are facts, opinions, evidence, lies, disinformation, etc., from which we can derive a very subjective "truth". Bush presented a perceived truth about 9/11. - Why it happened. The US presented a perceived truth about the lethality of Saddam/Iraq. - OH NOES NUKES. The perceived truths have been changed to match the current truth. - TOP 10 REASONS WE THINK THE INVASION WAS A GOOD IDEA..... The perceived truths are constantly changing by the administration about the war and what it means. So what is the truth? The popular perceived truth is that this war on terror is winnable. This perception has been pimped out so hard by the US administration and the MSM. There is instant ridicule of anything that can be considered an alternative or a real truth. Your MSM simply does not want to tell you the truth. This is why we have more O'Reilly's than Olbermanns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 How ironic..."judges" exist in part because truth doesn't. Nothing to do with irony, more like missing the message. " I swear to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god" Like I said, tell the judge there is no such thing as truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) Nothing to do with irony, more like missing the message." I swear to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god" Like I said, tell the judge there is no such thing as truth. Not only will I tell him, but also leave out the "god" part too. There is no truth, but you can believe whatever you want. Edited May 22, 2008 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Not only will I tell him, but also leave out the "god" part two. There is no truth, but you can believe whatever you want. You sound like the former Iraqi Minister of Missinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 You sound like the former Iraqi Minister of Missinformation. And you "sound" like yourself....seeking "truth" in America. Try looking for it at home first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 So what is the truth? The popular perceived truth is that this war on terror is winnable. This perception has been pimped out so hard by the US administration and the MSM. There is instant ridicule of anything that can be considered an alternative or a real truth. Ha! Thank you for proving my point. Your MSM simply does not want to tell you the truth. This is why we have more O'Reilly's than Olbermanns. Without "our" MSM, you wouldn't even have that much (in Canada). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 And you "sound" like yourself....seeking "truth" in America. Try looking for it at home first. If there is no truth here either , why the hell should I even look for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 Ha! Thank you for proving my point. But your point is a lie the way I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 But your point is a lie the way I see it. Yep..that is the point. Your truth is my lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Yep..that is the point. Your truth is my lie. Same lame tactics the Bush Administration has used through the terms. Same tactics you portray. Dishonesty with distraction, claiming the high ground. But you don't care as we know. So everything you say from now on is a lie. This shows to me you have no integrity as a human. You don't really ever stand for anything specific. Now back to the topic ... again. Look we all know for a fact there were lies to get to war. I know you and I both understand the real reasons behind the war. But you are too chicken it seems to even admit it. You love shuffling the blame where it suits you. Exactly how the Bush administration does things. Hell you might even be one of those Pentagon paid bloggers to spew forth the garbage they represent. You represent falacies and fictitious arguments. Like the Bush Administration. You simply represent many things that are wrong with the current administration , and humanity on the whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.